New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog

Published on: January 20, 2012

Court Rules on Excessive Gift to Charity

by Stephen Bilkis

The decedent executed a will that left all her estate after taxes and fees to a local cemetary association, and five well known charities. This constituted more than half of her estate.

If in case the will fails, a New York Probate Lawyer said that there will be twenty-nine first cousins who will be the beneficiaries. Three of these first cousins objected to the bequest to the charities. The cited the law regarding the contest for excessive bequest to charity. If their petition is granted any excess to half of the estate will be distributed to the cousins. The executors and the five charities appealed to dismiss the objection. The cousins objecting appeared before the court one with his separate counsel and the other two shared the same attorney.

To understand the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law regarding the excessive bequest to charity, one needs to determine first who can contest. The rule on contesting an excessive bequest to charity according to a Queens Probate Lawyers is that the person who is appealing against stands to gain pecuniary with a successful contest and that the bequest to charity is more than half of the estate. The law further supports it with the definition as to who these persons. Before September 1930, it could have been any relative. It was reduced by a revision in the law to linear descendants, wife, husband or parent. There has already been previous cases where in even the brothers or sisters, niece or nephew of a testator were not considered as people who could contest the will under the excessive bequest to charity. From 1860 to 1930, it would have been a proper objection made by a first cousin. The new statute that took effect in September 1, 1967 for the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law was taken from a revision in the Decedent Estate Law. It was made so that both provision worked side by side. Again, this limited the people who can contest a will through the excessive bequest to charity to a surviving parent, husband or wife, child or descendant.

Published on: January 19, 2012

Court Strikes Down Will for Lack of Capacity

by Stephen Bilkis

On December 20, 1952, the decedent died a childless widow. She left a supposed last will and testament that is dated April 29, 1929. This she tried to dispose of her estate and exercise a power of appointment granted to her by the will of her father. Another document dated September 13, 1929 was added that only confirmed and confirmed the April 29th will. According to a New York Probate Lawyer, after a trial by jury both wills were denied probate. The reason given was that the testator lacked the capacity or competency to execute a will. She was not of sound mind. The Appellate Court also affirmed this decision.

The question now is if there was an error in the surrogate court to admit into evidence the statements of two witnesses, now deceased, in a prior lunacy proceeding. The Surrogate court relied on the Civil Practice Act that the statement of a deceased witness in a former trial or hearing may be used as evidence in a following hearing of the same subject-matter. The hearing for lunacy was presumptive. There was no other evidence so it was admissible but not conclusive.

This is the history obtained by a Manhattan Probate Lawyer. Her husband died in 1927, when she was 53 years old. Before long, she was showing erratic and distraught behavior. She was presenting abnormal habits and conduct, which included alcohol abuse. Her condition became so bad that between 1927 and 1929 she had been a voluntary patient at a local hospital several times. The hospital is a licensed mental sanitarium in New York. Her condition still progressed and she was no longer able to take care of herself or her affairs. In September 24, 1929 she was admitted to a second hospital as a voluntary patient because of this. She stayed there until she died 23 years later.

Published on: January 19, 2012

Court Rules on Will Contest

by Stephen Bilkis

The decedent died on April 15, 1954 leaving a last will and testament that was admitted to probate on April 30 of the same year. He was survived by his wife and his brother. After about 11 and 1/2 years, the wife filed an appeal under the Decedent Estate Law that contested the fourth, fifth and sixth paragraph of the will. Her claim was that in gives more than 50% of the testator’s estate to a religious association.

A New York Probate Lawyer says that Section 17 of the Decedent Estate Law says ‘No person having a husband, wife, child, or descendant or parent, shall, by his or her last will and testament, devise or bequeath to any benevolent, charitable, literary, scientific, religious or missionary society, association, corporation or purpose, in trust or otherwise, more than one-half part of his or her estate, after the payment of his or her debts, and such devise or bequest shall be valid to the extent of one-half, and no more. The validity of a devise or bequest for more than such one-half may be contested only by a surviving husband, wife, child, descendant or parent…’

The decedent had made his wife, his brother and his friend and attorney executors of his estate. He gave to his wife $2,500 plus any earnings of the residue remainder of his estate, and she can get part of the principal up to $500 in a calendar year in case of illness. Upon his wife’s death or if his wife precedes him, his brother gets $1,000. $1,000 to be given to his churchin memory of my father and mother. To the church, he bequests $1,000 in memory of his wife. The rest of the residuary estate is given to the church.

Published on: January 18, 2012

Court Rules on Alleged Misconduct of Co-Conservator

by Stephen Bilkis

Two individuals and a trust company submitted a counter-application regarding the preliminary letters sent to them for the last will and testament of the decedent. In the will submitted by to the court for probate, one individual and the trust company were named as executors. In their petition, the petitioner’s eligibility to serve hold and oversee the assets of decedent is questioned. A New York Probate Lawyer said that the company is agreeing to act alone and not together with the petitioner.

The trust company alleges misconduct on the petitioner’s part while acting as the decedent’s attorney-in-fact and co-conservator while she was alive. An attorney-in-fact is a person who is legally authorized to transact business-related transactions in behalf of another. A conservator is a person appointed by court to oversee and mange the financial affairs of a person who is considered as under a legal disability. It is also required that part of the financial accounting is submitted for review. It is said the petitioner did not submit his records to his co-conservators, including the documents and assets of the decedent. He is also charged with preventing access to the decedent’s apartment, drawing checks that are payable to himself or cash, and wrongful investment of funds owned by the decedent in Great Britain.

The court states that if there is a good cause it may reverse the instruction of a will to make a person an executor of the estate. In the preliminary letters issued, it is required that it is in its original form. This does not remove the court’s authority for a wise discretion in determining who will be part of the execution of the will. A Manhattan Estate Litigation Lawyer said that leaving out a person named in a later will do not require a full hearing. It can be determined with affidavits as a basis or through a summary hearing. The court says that they prefer to avoid a contest within a contest. The legislature also wants an uncomplicated probate hearing. This is to save on cost and time for the court, and the parties concerned.

Published on: January 18, 2012

Court Rules on Will Contest Between Mother and Daughter

by Stephen Bilkis

A wife was named primary beneficiary and second wife of the decedent, and was named primary executor of all his estates in last June. But according to a New York Probate Lawyer,the decedent’s son, by previous marriage filed an objection on the last will and testament of his father claiming his wife exercised excessive and unlawful influence on his father and that the Will was executed with fraud. He filed an objection to his father’s will because he believed that the wife was not the rightful person to execute or manage his father’s properties and other cash and assets. Unfortunately no such evidence was found by the court and the wife was still and remained to be the sole executor of the husband’s will.

However, the wife went on and continued filing a case against the father’s daughter. The wife claimed that the daughter sent two letters to the father’s attorney and that both letters contained false accusations about her personality as well as her family’s reputation. They said letters were also sent to court as part of the evidence against the daughter. According to reports received by New York Estate Litigation Lawyer, the wife claimed that the daughter was objecting to the wife’s inheritance and the letters were her way to contest her father’s will. It was noted that the wife had already filed a previous case against the daughter to remove her from participating in her father’s estate. The court ruled in favour of the daughter saying that there was no sufficient evidence or any cause to bar her from such participation. That is why the wife again filed another case, still pursuing to remove the daughter from her father’s will and testament. The wife further claimed that the daughter and father conspired against her to remove her from being the executor of their father’s estate. However, the wife’s only evidence was the letters the daughter wrote and sent to the father’s attorney.

The daughter on the other hand, said that she only wrote those letters because she was asked by the father’s attorney for some background information on the mother and that those letters were never meant to hurt anybody or discredit anybody from anything. The court also said that it was also true that the daughter was not properly informed that her personal letters were going to be admitted as evidence against her in the court of law. A New York Will and Trust Lawyer was also informed that the daughter even signed a waiver and consent that her father’s will was valid and that the title as primary executor or beneficiary of his estate of properties were all executed legally and lawfully. These documents signed by the daughter with regards to her father’s estate and also with regards to her father’s chosen executor or beneficiary only made the mother’s defense stronger, strong enough to dismiss the daughter appeal to remove her from her father’s last will.

Published on: November 9, 2011

the aid recipients need to perform WEP assignments

by Stephen Bilkis

The public assistance recipients who had been classified as employable with limitations had a filed an instant law suit against the City administration and the State. The people were classified as such because of the medical problems that they have. Their allegation was that the City administration often puts them in jobs that are not compatible with their disabilities. The plaintiffs who have been assigned to the Work Experience Program (WEP) state that aside from the incompatible jobs, the State has failed to supervise the program under the Social Services law.

A New York Probate Lawyer found out that the court has found that the plaintiffs had raised a serious fairness issue and could be entitled to a Writ of Mandamus that requires a government agency to do something that they should by law. It can also be a writ of prohibition, which will prohibit a government agency, even a judge, from doing something that they should not. Or it can also be a Mandamus Review, where a decision of a public agency is reversed.

According to the social services law, in exchange for welfare benefits, the aid recipients need to perform WEP assignments, unless the recipients are exempted due to physical or mental disabilities. The city’s medical contractor determines if they are E-I or employable, E-II or employable with limitations, E-III or temporarily disabled, or E-IV which is permanently disabled. People classified as E-II should still work but will be assigned jobs compatible with their disability.

Published on: November 4, 2011

Chardbourne and Parke, LLP represented the people who are involved in a Will left by Renate Hoffman,

by Stephen Bilkis

Chardbourne and Parke, LLP represented the people who are involved in a Will left by Renate Hoffman, deceased. The Will was executed by Hoffman in 1988 and named the German National Church as primary beneficiary of his estate. According to reports that reached a New York Estate Administration lawyer, this 1988 Will was strongly objected and challenged by Robert Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. who were the primary executors of a prior Will of Hoffman which was executed in 1972. This became a long and extensive trial in which the two parties, Chardbourne and Park as well as Warshaw and Chase Manhattan entered in to an agreement in which the German Catholic Church received a considerable sum of $3 million dollars. In addition to this hefty settlement, the church will also receive a half-interest in a trust from the proceeds of the remainder of the estate.

According to further report given to a New York Litigation attorney, Chardbourne and Parke filed a case against Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank because of unpaid legal fees when the former performed its legal duties during the German Catholic Church settlement. Unfortunately their case did not progress in court. The court ruled in favour of the defendants, Warshaw and Chase Manhattan. In 2001 however, Chardbourne and Parke filed for an appeal of the previous decision by the court. Warshaw and Chase Manhattan argued that the 1988 Will was not the correct one to be administered and that Chardbourne has acted knowingly on their own. It was also noted by Warshaw and Manhattan that there was further wrong doing on the part of Chardbourne and Parke, LPP.

The trial continued on and arguments were presented regarding the 1988 Will’s validity which was also again brought up. This is due to the fact that Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank refused to grant Chardbourne and Parke the legal or attorney’s fees. Warshaw and Chase’s argument was that the 1988 Will was only illegal but that Chardbourne and Park was already aware of this but still continued on with its execution. But based on reports gathered by a New York Probate lawyer, when Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank entered into an agreement and settlement with Chardbourne and Parke, LLP the latter already impliedly recognized the validity of the Will and the contract agreement both parties entered into. Still according to the court, Warshaw and Chase Manhattan allowed a considerable amount of money be given to the primary beneficiary of the 1988 Will which was the German Catholic Church with a half interest on trust as part of the estate. This was considered by the court as more than enough evidence that both parties agreed on the validity of the Will in question. The court also noted that there is no legal cause to deny Chardbourne and Parke, LLP the legal fees for their services rendered.

Published on: October 31, 2011

The Fitzgerald Estate was valued at $2 million

by Stephen Bilkis

According to a New York Estate Lawyer, this is a case about the estate of Bertha Weil Fitzgerald. Reports that reached his office said that the estate was left to a number of charitable institutions and couple of churches according to her will. These charities and churches are Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York, including Manhattan and Staten Island, National Society for Prevention of Blindness, Inc., The Fresh Air Fund, First National City Bank as Committee of the Property of Paul S. Ames, Jr., Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Archbishopric of New York and for Terence Cardinal Cooke, The Salvation Army, Heart Fund, American Cancer Society Inc., and the New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center.

According to the Will that was executed in 1970, all of these charities and churches shall receive each an amount of $50,000. The Fitzgerald Estate was valued at $2 million. The remainder of the estate shall be given to the Archbishopric of New York. However, Bertha Weil Fitzgerald had a 41 year old son who was, according to sources told a New York Probate attorney, legally entitled to the estate of his deceased mother. It was also said on the Will that Bertha did not intend to leave any amount r any part of her estate to her son, who was also invalid and incompetent. The son according to reports had been institutionalized since childhood and therefore was under no condition to care for himself much less to her mother’s estate. It was also noted that the grandmother, Bertha’s mother already left half a million dollars to her grandson when she passed away some years back.

This case was filed by the trust company of Bertha’s son claiming that the son, under their representation did not receive any notice about the Will of Bertha. They claim that the son was not able to file an objection to his mother’s last will and testament and that it was right to do so. It was also noted that by law an incompetent spouse or in this case a son can file for an objection if he or she was left with a sum leas than or not equal to the sum that were left to other beneficiaries in this churches and charitable institutions. It is also what is known as a case of excessive or too much charity.

Published on: October 27, 2011

This is a case file by William Power Maloney

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case file by William Power Maloney against the estate of E. Townsend Irvin and against other people including the widow and other beneficiaries of the estate. It was determined in a report sent to a New York Estate Litigation Lawyer that Maloney served as counsel of lawyer for one of the beneficiaries, J. Gordon Douglas, who was also later named as executor of the estate. Much was discussed about this case because there were also other people involved in the estate like the Woodbury family.

Maloney was asking for the settlement of his legal fees because of the services he rendered to his client, J. Gordon Douglas. He was asking the court grants his petition and that he be paid for his services and that the payment should come from the Irvin estate. At that time, Maloney was asking to be paid the sum of $16,000. It was questioned by the court and by the other beneficiaries why such an amount be paid to him from the Irvin estate when in fact, according to them Maloney did not perform or rendered any services for the deceased or his estate.

It was also reported to a New York Estate lawyer that because of the longstanding arguments of the widow and the Woodbury family along with J. Gordon Douglas, the proceedings regarding the estate has taken so long already. Douglas, according to Maloney approached him and said that unless there is a compromised agreement between the widow and the Woodbury family, the trial could probably take longer than necessary. Maloney said that he worked with the disputing parties to come up with a settlement. According to him, the sum of $25,000 was agreed upon by the disputing parties that finally ended their objections and disputes. But it unknown to both parties that Maloney was working for them and the estate. They were under that impression that Maloney represented Douglas who was at that time was not yet named as executor of the estate.

Published on: October 24, 2011

E. Louise Grupp died in September 25, 1992.

by Stephen Bilkis

With an Estate amounting to almost two million dollars, E. Louise Grupp died in September 25, 1992. The will that was given for probate was only dated two weeks before Mr. Grupp died. The will was dated September 11, 1992. The executors who wear named in the will were Joan E. Maloney, Esq., and Eleanor G. Dunn. There was an older will filed with the court that was dated July 9, 1992. Interested parties had examined the witnesses to the will.

The will dated September 11, 1992 sets up the $300,000 trust for Ms. Nitterauer and places another $150,000 in trust for her sons. Aside from that she gets personal effects and the testator’s house. From what a New York Estate Lawyer gathered, the remaining part of the estate of the deceased goes to the Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company as trustee for the Buffalo Foundation to be held as a perpetual charitable fund in memory of Mrs. Grupp and her late husband. Nine charities are assigned as income beneficiaries of fund assets in various percentages totaling 95% of net income, with the recipients of the remaining 5% to be selected by the Foundation. If the foundation fails to qualify as a charity or any of the other named organizations then the trustee will select from qualifying charities.

A terrorem clause was also in this will. That if anyone contests the probate or any part of the will, their interest will be forfeited, and it will be treated like that person died before the testator.